UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47826946
20 comments
We don't ban users for "non-conforming posts" unless you mean non-conforming with the site guidelines.
People sometimes claim otherwise but such claims never seem to come with links that would allow readers to make up their own minds. If what you're saying is even 10% true, there should be an abundance of such links available.
People sometimes claim otherwise but such claims never seem to come with links that would allow readers to make up their own minds. If what you're saying is even 10% true, there should be an abundance of such links available.
My impression is that HN moderators mostly focus on civility. IME stance-related silencing occurs only via downvotes by regular users.
There’s a strong, intentional skew in their enforcement:
dang has previously said that they’re more critical of people who perturb the groupthink, and take action against them for things people supporting popular opinions would be excused for.
That’s what it means when they say they censor to keep “civility”: if the groupthink finds you disruptive, you will be silenced by arbitrary application of rules others (who subscribe to groupthink) are excused for — and in this way, an insistence on civility always favors groupthink.
The pretense of censoring for civility here is merely dishonest gaslighting about their ideological policing, in favor of groupthink.
It’s precisely the same kind of dishonesty you see in YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook’s censoring of conservative voices: hyperpartisans screech, and complicit moderates use that as a pretense to enact their biases.
dang has previously said that they’re more critical of people who perturb the groupthink, and take action against them for things people supporting popular opinions would be excused for.
That’s what it means when they say they censor to keep “civility”: if the groupthink finds you disruptive, you will be silenced by arbitrary application of rules others (who subscribe to groupthink) are excused for — and in this way, an insistence on civility always favors groupthink.
The pretense of censoring for civility here is merely dishonest gaslighting about their ideological policing, in favor of groupthink.
It’s precisely the same kind of dishonesty you see in YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook’s censoring of conservative voices: hyperpartisans screech, and complicit moderates use that as a pretense to enact their biases.
I've not said that. If you're going to make such a claim, you should provide a link so readers can make up their own minds.
The other claims you make aren't really falsifiable, though I can tell you we go out of our way not to moderate HN based on ideology, and I can also tell you that for whatever ideological position you'd care to name, people loudly complain that we're biased against it.
The other claims you make aren't really falsifiable, though I can tell you we go out of our way not to moderate HN based on ideology, and I can also tell you that for whatever ideological position you'd care to name, people loudly complain that we're biased against it.
You have, to me, in reply to contentious things I’ve said.
Repeatedly.
Repeatedly.
All my replies to your comments can be found in this subthread, and plainly do not match your description.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19345439
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19345439
> Especially: "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
> dang has previously said that they’re more critical of people who perturb the groupthink, and take action against them for things people supporting popular opinions would be excused for.
Your entire moderation policy is based around precisely what I claimed, as you yourself stated: the arbitrary application of increased standards for comments which disrupt groupthink, or to use a euphemism, are “divisive”.
> dang has previously said that they’re more critical of people who perturb the groupthink, and take action against them for things people supporting popular opinions would be excused for.
Your entire moderation policy is based around precisely what I claimed, as you yourself stated: the arbitrary application of increased standards for comments which disrupt groupthink, or to use a euphemism, are “divisive”.
@FakeComments: I'd like to share an idea you may find helpful.
I too am sometimes frustrated by how HN conversations go. There are numerous times where I know I'm taking a contrary position on HN, and despite my best efforts to present my argument politely and succinctly, the audience seems unable or unwilling to honestly engage with my logic. It's doubly vexing when my comments are downvoted without clear justification. (To be clear: I'm talking only about downvoting, not thwacking from the site admins.)
But I also think there's plenty of evidence that taking a harsh tone in the discussion is unproductive in such conversations, and is ineffective at curbing the behavior of (what I perceive as) unjustified penalization of my comments.
So here's my idea: How about treating this as an intellectual challenge? The goal is to study the form and substance of these contentious discussions, and identify trends regarding successful vs. failed presentations of contrary viewpoints. And then see if adopting those forms results in more satisfying discussions of the points you're trying to raise?
If you're able to nail that skill, especially with a sometimes-fickle audience, you may find it benefits other areas of life as well.
I too am sometimes frustrated by how HN conversations go. There are numerous times where I know I'm taking a contrary position on HN, and despite my best efforts to present my argument politely and succinctly, the audience seems unable or unwilling to honestly engage with my logic. It's doubly vexing when my comments are downvoted without clear justification. (To be clear: I'm talking only about downvoting, not thwacking from the site admins.)
But I also think there's plenty of evidence that taking a harsh tone in the discussion is unproductive in such conversations, and is ineffective at curbing the behavior of (what I perceive as) unjustified penalization of my comments.
So here's my idea: How about treating this as an intellectual challenge? The goal is to study the form and substance of these contentious discussions, and identify trends regarding successful vs. failed presentations of contrary viewpoints. And then see if adopting those forms results in more satisfying discussions of the points you're trying to raise?
If you're able to nail that skill, especially with a sometimes-fickle audience, you may find it benefits other areas of life as well.
You admit your comment is non-responsive to my point, which is that dang ideologically censors posts.
Do you believe a non-sequitur ad hominem was a constructive comment?
I’d prefer not to learn that style of social skill.
Your comment is also factually wrong: the reason that censorship for civility developed as a strategy is that it’s maximally effective suppressing ideological conversion for the amount of speech it suppresses. Your comment then becomes nothing more than “working under adverse conditions teaches resiliency”, which is true — but not a reason to stop questioning the censorship policy.
People do not rationally switch positions — they switch positions during an emotional cascade after a sufficient number of rational reasons have accumulated. That “avalanche” where an emotional spark triggers the awareness of a substantial shift in your beliefs.
These criticality events necessarily require an emotional trigger such a failing to be able to substantively reply to provocatively phrased arguments or the inability to factually correct mocking humor.
Civility suppresses precisely that: the emotional barbs in arguments and the mockery which might provoke a person to change their stance, in a substantive manner.
Rationality alone is all powder, no spark.
Do you believe a non-sequitur ad hominem was a constructive comment?
I’d prefer not to learn that style of social skill.
Your comment is also factually wrong: the reason that censorship for civility developed as a strategy is that it’s maximally effective suppressing ideological conversion for the amount of speech it suppresses. Your comment then becomes nothing more than “working under adverse conditions teaches resiliency”, which is true — but not a reason to stop questioning the censorship policy.
People do not rationally switch positions — they switch positions during an emotional cascade after a sufficient number of rational reasons have accumulated. That “avalanche” where an emotional spark triggers the awareness of a substantial shift in your beliefs.
These criticality events necessarily require an emotional trigger such a failing to be able to substantively reply to provocatively phrased arguments or the inability to factually correct mocking humor.
Civility suppresses precisely that: the emotional barbs in arguments and the mockery which might provoke a person to change their stance, in a substantive manner.
Rationality alone is all powder, no spark.
I'm assuming that we all want roughly the same thing: we each want to believe all true facts, disbelieve all false facts, and hopefully help others achieve that as well.
I think your point about cascades is interesting, and it seems to jive with my experience. And I can see how censoring for civility would, as a result, be an impediment to changing minds.
I also believe @dang's point that not stifling incivility leads to unproductive flame wars. Which, I'm guessing, also results in conversations that fail to change minds.
So where does that leave us regarding HN discussions? Can you think of an approach that addresses both your and @dang's points? Are we stuck with having HN admins try to find the optimal censorship policy that somehow balances the issues you and @dang have raised?
Please also consider the possibility that you may have a greater appetite for (hopefully productive) acrimony than the majority of HN's target community. In terms of your theory of changing minds, the HN owners may wish for this site to be where people can discuss the logical / empirical aspects of issue in a calm and pleasant manner, and leave the mind-chaning, emotional stages of the discussions for other forums.
I think your point about cascades is interesting, and it seems to jive with my experience. And I can see how censoring for civility would, as a result, be an impediment to changing minds.
I also believe @dang's point that not stifling incivility leads to unproductive flame wars. Which, I'm guessing, also results in conversations that fail to change minds.
So where does that leave us regarding HN discussions? Can you think of an approach that addresses both your and @dang's points? Are we stuck with having HN admins try to find the optimal censorship policy that somehow balances the issues you and @dang have raised?
Please also consider the possibility that you may have a greater appetite for (hopefully productive) acrimony than the majority of HN's target community. In terms of your theory of changing minds, the HN owners may wish for this site to be where people can discuss the logical / empirical aspects of issue in a calm and pleasant manner, and leave the mind-chaning, emotional stages of the discussions for other forums.
That guideline is based on the evidence of what happens when people don't follow it. That's the opposite of arbitrary. You're effectively calling the rule "no fires in a dry forest" arbitrary because it doesn't apply to all forests.
Uncivil comments about divisive topics lead to flamewars. Flamebait comments don't "disrupt groupthink"; they reinforce it, because what flamewars do is reinforce pre-existing opinions with jacked-up intensity. If you want to change other people's minds, you need to actually reach those people. Verbally tasing the other side makes them go rigid and think whatever they thought before, just more angrily.
Uncivil comments about divisive topics lead to flamewars. Flamebait comments don't "disrupt groupthink"; they reinforce it, because what flamewars do is reinforce pre-existing opinions with jacked-up intensity. If you want to change other people's minds, you need to actually reach those people. Verbally tasing the other side makes them go rigid and think whatever they thought before, just more angrily.
> That guideline is based on the evidence of what happens when people don't follow it. That's the opposite of arbitrary.
I didn’t mean to imply that the rule was arbitrarily selected, merely that your application of it was arbitrary — that it, at the sole discretion of a small group of people, without guiding rules, and without systematic review for p, eg, bias.
Force, such as bans, applied in an arbitrary manner is inherently tyrannical — and your appeals to civility a rote recitation of a millennia old justification for tyranny. Tyrants are never merely enforcing their biases on others — it’s always for the greater purpose!
Having been a member of this community for a while, my reply would be that flame war groupthink is better than this groupthink: flame wars can occasionally change minds and show the diversity of extant opinions — while your groupthink preserving censorship distorts people’s view of the diversity of opinions while leading to no more changed minds, and is therefore strictly worse.
I didn’t mean to imply that the rule was arbitrarily selected, merely that your application of it was arbitrary — that it, at the sole discretion of a small group of people, without guiding rules, and without systematic review for p, eg, bias.
Force, such as bans, applied in an arbitrary manner is inherently tyrannical — and your appeals to civility a rote recitation of a millennia old justification for tyranny. Tyrants are never merely enforcing their biases on others — it’s always for the greater purpose!
Having been a member of this community for a while, my reply would be that flame war groupthink is better than this groupthink: flame wars can occasionally change minds and show the diversity of extant opinions — while your groupthink preserving censorship distorts people’s view of the diversity of opinions while leading to no more changed minds, and is therefore strictly worse.
[deleted]
> But it also covers harmful behaviour that has a less clear legal definition such as cyber-bullying, trolling and the spread of fake news and disinformation.
So, basically any site with user content can be fined/blocked at any time at the official's discretion.
So, basically any site with user content can be fined/blocked at any time at the official's discretion.
This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter.
While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester.
Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they now try to block wikileaks and other similar journalism?
My greatest fear is that these waves of censorship are there to remove resistance against a 3rd world war. The US, Israel and UK are currently very aggressive.
Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I
While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester.
Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they now try to block wikileaks and other similar journalism?
My greatest fear is that these waves of censorship are there to remove resistance against a 3rd world war. The US, Israel and UK are currently very aggressive.
Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I
Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.
> Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact.
What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1].
We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1].
We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
>100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]
>[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
These just seem to be anti-war protests. I'm not seeing anything that suggests they knew it was false, or that that was the reason for the protests
>[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
These just seem to be anti-war protests. I'm not seeing anything that suggests they knew it was false, or that that was the reason for the protests
I was part of the protests. It was widely reported in the media that WMDs weren't found, that Iraq was cooperating with the UN, and that the government's evidence was debunked.
The "anti-war" thing was just a big-tent message that most of those against the war could agree to (with each group having their own reason for being against it).
The "anti-war" thing was just a big-tent message that most of those against the war could agree to (with each group having their own reason for being against it).
As someone who was against the war, I would say I didn’t know they didn’t have WMDs.
What I did think was that even if they did, there were other options on the table and that those had not been pursued to their full extent. Yes Saddam was playing 3-card Monty, but never the less we had time at our disposal we also didn’t pursue corroborating evidence and it all seemed like making up a reason for war rather than an actual casus belli. I mean, so what some known terrorists had passage? It’s not as if Saddam didn’t have his own insurrections to deal with.
There was no nuance. It was all let’s go! Most dissenters were more like, slow down, we’re not there yet, we haven’t exhausted all options yet.
What I did think was that even if they did, there were other options on the table and that those had not been pursued to their full extent. Yes Saddam was playing 3-card Monty, but never the less we had time at our disposal we also didn’t pursue corroborating evidence and it all seemed like making up a reason for war rather than an actual casus belli. I mean, so what some known terrorists had passage? It’s not as if Saddam didn’t have his own insurrections to deal with.
There was no nuance. It was all let’s go! Most dissenters were more like, slow down, we’re not there yet, we haven’t exhausted all options yet.
The UN Weapons inspectors debunked the WMDs before troops even entered the country.
> In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.
So we knew.
> In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.
So we knew.
I don’t think that was conclusive (they didn’t have free access). Also, often times a first go at anything is typically faulty. It was; however, a reason to put things on hold and be more rigorous and investigate further.
I think mostly it was the establishment (Dems, Repubs, Globalists, etc. m) that wanted Saddam out, no matter what. Only old-style conservatives and leftists and other small constituencies dissented.
I think mostly it was the establishment (Dems, Repubs, Globalists, etc. m) that wanted Saddam out, no matter what. Only old-style conservatives and leftists and other small constituencies dissented.
I’m not going to rehash the Iraq war timeline.. you’ve clearly missed my point. Just replace Iraq with gulf of Tonkin. That deception lasted a lot longer.
> we only found out it was false after the fact
The correct information was available, but largely ignored by mass media. For example:
> 13 March 2003
> The Blair Government has known, almost from the day it came to office in 1997, that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were almost certainly destroyed following the Gulf War.
> Of all the pro-war propaganda of Blair and Bush, and their current threats giving Saddam Hussein yet another deadline to disarm, what may be their biggest lie is exposed by this revelation.
> Two weeks ago, a transcript of a United Nations debriefing of Iraqi general Hussein Kamel was obtained by the American magazine, Newsweek, and by Cambridge University analyst, Glen Rangwala (who last month revealed that Blair's "intelligence dossier" on Iraq was lifted, word for word, from an American student's thesis).
> General Kamel was the West's "star witness" in its case against Saddam Hussein. He was no ordinary defector. A son-in-law of the Iraqi dictator, he had immense power in Iraq; and when he defected, he took with him crates of secret documents on Iraq's weapons programme.
[...]
> In 1995, General Kamel was debriefed by senior officials of the United Nations inspections team, then known as UNSCOM, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The complete transcript, now disclosed for the first time, contradicts almost everything Bush and Blair have said about the threat of Iraqi weapons.
> For example, General Kamel says categorically: "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear - were destroyed." All that remains, he says, are the blueprints, computer disks and microfiches.
Read the full article: http://johnpilger.com/articles/iraq-s-weapons-of-mass-destru...
The correct information was available, but largely ignored by mass media. For example:
> 13 March 2003
> The Blair Government has known, almost from the day it came to office in 1997, that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were almost certainly destroyed following the Gulf War.
> Of all the pro-war propaganda of Blair and Bush, and their current threats giving Saddam Hussein yet another deadline to disarm, what may be their biggest lie is exposed by this revelation.
> Two weeks ago, a transcript of a United Nations debriefing of Iraqi general Hussein Kamel was obtained by the American magazine, Newsweek, and by Cambridge University analyst, Glen Rangwala (who last month revealed that Blair's "intelligence dossier" on Iraq was lifted, word for word, from an American student's thesis).
> General Kamel was the West's "star witness" in its case against Saddam Hussein. He was no ordinary defector. A son-in-law of the Iraqi dictator, he had immense power in Iraq; and when he defected, he took with him crates of secret documents on Iraq's weapons programme.
[...]
> In 1995, General Kamel was debriefed by senior officials of the United Nations inspections team, then known as UNSCOM, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The complete transcript, now disclosed for the first time, contradicts almost everything Bush and Blair have said about the threat of Iraqi weapons.
> For example, General Kamel says categorically: "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear - were destroyed." All that remains, he says, are the blueprints, computer disks and microfiches.
Read the full article: http://johnpilger.com/articles/iraq-s-weapons-of-mass-destru...
> Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact.
Key US/UK claims were debunked by UN weapons inspectors in the same UN hearing where they were presented.
That the “Winnebagos of Mass Destruction” weren't the mobile WMD labs they were portrayed as (and that the US and UK knew because the UK had literally sold them to Iraq) was also also public before the war.
> In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news
No, worse, it would just be ignored by large masses of the public who would believe the government anyway, and even forget that they'd been given repeated information about how they were being lied to.
Key US/UK claims were debunked by UN weapons inspectors in the same UN hearing where they were presented.
That the “Winnebagos of Mass Destruction” weren't the mobile WMD labs they were portrayed as (and that the US and UK knew because the UK had literally sold them to Iraq) was also also public before the war.
> In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news
No, worse, it would just be ignored by large masses of the public who would believe the government anyway, and even forget that they'd been given repeated information about how they were being lied to.
> Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact.
Negative on this one.
Everyone knew this was fake beforehand. Colin Powell almost got laughed out of UN for the “evidence” he presented.
Everyone who was paying attention could tell this was 100% a propaganda-piece.
Negative on this one.
Everyone knew this was fake beforehand. Colin Powell almost got laughed out of UN for the “evidence” he presented.
Everyone who was paying attention could tell this was 100% a propaganda-piece.
> Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I
Why should I take him seriously when he acts like an asshole to people on Twitter, calling them AlQuaeda supporters.
https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/104300934636216729... https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161
Did he aplogize yet for spreading outrageous lies about Khan-Sheikoun 2017 chemical attack, smearing doctors and first responders? The investigation of that attack is over. It would be appropriate, now that there has been a 2nd aniversary a few days ago.
Why should I take him seriously when he acts like an asshole to people on Twitter, calling them AlQuaeda supporters.
https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/104300934636216729... https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161
Did he aplogize yet for spreading outrageous lies about Khan-Sheikoun 2017 chemical attack, smearing doctors and first responders? The investigation of that attack is over. It would be appropriate, now that there has been a 2nd aniversary a few days ago.
thanks for sharing this phenomenal video. not from the US so I wasn't familiar with him. really enjoyed the tear-down and explanation on this propaganda campaign and how it works in contrast to before the internet.
Don't forget to check his track record on claims about past incidents from his past videos, that were actually later investigated by competent third parties.
You may be less excited as a result, about his other claims.
You may be less excited as a result, about his other claims.
thanks
This is probably a tool the government wants to use when something like a mass shooting manifesto is published. Facebook can't stop people reading it? Well then let's block Facebook for a week.
Interestingly, this is the same tactic dictatorships use to quell rebellions.
Interestingly, this is the same tactic dictatorships use to quell rebellions.
The web has been more or less mainstream for going on 25 years now - before that, the dominant mainstream mass communication medium was television. Television was, and still is, subject to government censorship and regulation based on very tenuous legal arguments (viciously supported by pearl-clutching moral panicking puritans), and we've seen what it becomes: mindless, thoughtless, brainless, and above-all only "offensive" or thought-provoking in very specifically constrained ways. As soon as the web started to become well known, I was idly curious how long it would take to become television - to be honest, it's taken longer than I realistically expected, mostly because world governments can't quite seem to agree on exactly how they should oppress us, but believe me, it's coming. And when it does, there really won't be many of us that see it as a negative.
The issue here will be securing a conviction or affecting actual change. I suspect the cost to conviction/prosecution (for the Uk taxpayer) will be so high, and the fines/action so small for the respective platforms, it will hardly be worth the effort.
Most likely companies will be fined retrospectively for a bit of government PR.
OK lets say this article harmed me in some way. If I don't need to prove it then this law lets me shut down the BBC? How do you deal with thousands of "online harms"? If I do need to prove it, given the law is so vague on what that is, I can never succeed since big sites have fancy lawyers, and small sites will just go out of business, and the law is a waste of time.
The law is not a waste of time. The law is clearly intended to prevent disruption in the online news / publishing space to protect the big players from competition. In that sense, this law seems like it will be extremely effective.
I think you are over stretching. The lae has dealt for hundreds of years with idea that one person might harm another. Such laws tend to be a little vague, then build up case law, at least in the UK.
A lot of commenters tend to think of the law as an API, and frame all discussions about it as such.
"So what, I just have to POST https://law.uk/onlineharm, and I get to take down the BBC? That's ridiculous!"
Any given strawman is ridiculous.
"So what, I just have to POST https://law.uk/onlineharm, and I get to take down the BBC? That's ridiculous!"
Any given strawman is ridiculous.
I hate to say it, but large online social platforms are really giving governments way too much ammunition to start regulating and censoring the now largely centralized Internet.
Very, very scary but interesting times ahead.
Very, very scary but interesting times ahead.
Because of the internet, a lot of people are becoming aware of stories like how the CIA watched over the "get Gary Webb team" of industry experts who said "we're going to take away his Pulitzer," before Webb died by "suicide" by two gunshot wounds to the head.(1) Just one of thousands of outrageous stories questioning where global power lies and what those who have it are doing with it.
Iraq lies were territory of "fake news" and conspiracy theories, same as a lot of what Tulsi Gabbard is saying about the US military industrial complex.
Every group of individuals will always have psychopaths whom try to cheat to exert control over others. Obviously many powerful people in the world dont want a democracy of individuals sharing ideas freely.
https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-m...
Iraq lies were territory of "fake news" and conspiracy theories, same as a lot of what Tulsi Gabbard is saying about the US military industrial complex.
Every group of individuals will always have psychopaths whom try to cheat to exert control over others. Obviously many powerful people in the world dont want a democracy of individuals sharing ideas freely.
https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-m...
Since David Cameron days, the UK government has had every intention of turning UK into another China, at least as far as surveillance and censorship goes. They just can't do it so obviously, so they do it in a round-about way like arguing for "porn filters" and later for other "serious crimes". And then you wake up one day that they use the filters for whatever they want.
I find it baffling how western nations can't understand how they're now providing ideological justification to the same stances Russia and China are taking towards the internet.
It's only baffling if you assume that the people in government are smart.
Somewhat less glibly, it's compartmentalization, basically. Take an ordinary, not-especially-intelligent person who has basically authoritarian intuitions, teach them liberal principles, and you'll get a person who espouses the liberal way only in the particular examples you taught them. (Or in other examples that someone else explicitly connects to those principles.) Most people are just really terrible at applying things they notionally believe outside the specific contexts they associate them with.
Somewhat less glibly, it's compartmentalization, basically. Take an ordinary, not-especially-intelligent person who has basically authoritarian intuitions, teach them liberal principles, and you'll get a person who espouses the liberal way only in the particular examples you taught them. (Or in other examples that someone else explicitly connects to those principles.) Most people are just really terrible at applying things they notionally believe outside the specific contexts they associate them with.
Yea.. Even one of my friends with an Ivy degree read and espoused the views of a popular conservative pundit for years, even lauding them as as basically a religious liberal.
People throughout history are the same as they are today. Subservient to authority, self-serving, lazy thinkers, and barely even able to think for themselves in the first place.
People throughout history are the same as they are today. Subservient to authority, self-serving, lazy thinkers, and barely even able to think for themselves in the first place.
>Even one of my friends with an Ivy degree read and espoused the views of a popular conservative pundit for years, even lauding them as as basically a religious liberal.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, are you saying that no well-educated person would have any conservative viewpoints? That seems patently nonsense.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, are you saying that no well-educated person would have any conservative viewpoints? That seems patently nonsense.
No, I was agreeing with the parent comment and offered an example. Within this context, I'm not trying to make any left vs right, or vice versa, political arguments.
This person self-identified as liberal. However, they only recognized liberal views within the contexts they had been pre-familiarized with. In fact, this person read, regurgitated, and lauded conservative views for years while beleiving them to be liberal views. This is a particularly hyper-educated person (though in a non-technical field completely removed from economics, politics).
This person self-identified as liberal. However, they only recognized liberal views within the contexts they had been pre-familiarized with. In fact, this person read, regurgitated, and lauded conservative views for years while beleiving them to be liberal views. This is a particularly hyper-educated person (though in a non-technical field completely removed from economics, politics).
Thanks, that makes sense, and I totally agree. You can see this in (American) society with the politics of race, free speech, and many other domains.
Only if you still belive the cold-war narrative of Freedmon=West vs. Tyranny=East. We live in the wold of a worldwide corporate kleptocracy -- regardless of geographic region. There are of course differences in how the states handle opposition and dissenting voices, but all in all the East-vs-West distinction (or ideological differences in general) are not a good framework of description, when trying to analyze issues concerning state and power these days.
State Owned Corporations v.s. Corporation Owned State
It's not particularly baffling if you think that Western nations are taking these stances for approximately the same reasons as Russia and China are.
[deleted]
Jeremy Wright, "Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the UK" penned an op-ed in CNN about this. [0] The closing line is particularly infuriating to me: "That is an objective on which the British Government, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Mark Zuckerberg would all agree."
No, I don't think TBL would agree on this. The cited organization started by him explicitly calls for the opposite [1]:
- Ensure everyone can connect to the internet so that anyone, no matter who they are or where they live, can participate actively online.
- Keep all of the internet available, all of the time so that no one is denied their right to full internet access.
- Respect people’s fundamental right to privacy so everyone can use the internet freely, safely and without fear.
[0] https://us.cnn.com/2019/04/07/opinions/uk-government-online-...
[1] https://fortheweb.webfoundation.org/principles/
No, I don't think TBL would agree on this. The cited organization started by him explicitly calls for the opposite [1]:
- Ensure everyone can connect to the internet so that anyone, no matter who they are or where they live, can participate actively online.
- Keep all of the internet available, all of the time so that no one is denied their right to full internet access.
- Respect people’s fundamental right to privacy so everyone can use the internet freely, safely and without fear.
[0] https://us.cnn.com/2019/04/07/opinions/uk-government-online-...
[1] https://fortheweb.webfoundation.org/principles/
>without fear.
Do they mean fear on the consumer end or the content creator end? There is a natural tension there which must be resolved. A fearless internet for content creators means lots of ungood content out there (sometimes doubleplus ungood!). A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content, unless they go through great efforts to seek it out.
Do they mean fear on the consumer end or the content creator end? There is a natural tension there which must be resolved. A fearless internet for content creators means lots of ungood content out there (sometimes doubleplus ungood!). A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content, unless they go through great efforts to seek it out.
> A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content
That's one way to generally interpret "fear" but not in its context of a right to privacy. "Without fear" in this context must mean fear of what happens when you don't have privacy, that is chiefly: embarrassment and persecution.
That's one way to generally interpret "fear" but not in its context of a right to privacy. "Without fear" in this context must mean fear of what happens when you don't have privacy, that is chiefly: embarrassment and persecution.
Thanks for the clarification, that makes a huge difference in meaning. Appreciated.
What is it with the obsession about "hate speech" in some random internet comment section? Report that user, ignore it, turn off the screen, whatever. How in the world is it worth spending actual policing resources on this nonsense?
[deleted]
Well, the justification - mind you, I don't agree, I'm just answering your (rhetorical?) question - is that speech can sway opinions, opinions can shape behavior, and (the wrong sort of) behavior can lead to chaos, so it's best to nip the wrong sort of speech in the bud before it cascades into genocide. The problem with that sort of "slippery slope" thinking is that it always ends up slippery-slope-ing in the other direction: hate speech regulations designed to silence nazis calling for genocide are almost immediately applied to reasoned, principled, thoughtful people like Jordan Peterson whose conclusions are outside the mainstream.
Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go? They will no doubt go to the darker web and concentrate there.
I find this argument similar to: regulating the construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading.
The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.
The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.
> I find this argument similar to: regulating the
> construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading.
You're calling it out as a slippery slope argument [1], which is fair enough - except there is already evidence to suggest that users kicked off of these platforms migrate to Minds (Twitter alternative), Gab (Facebook alternative) and BitChute (Youtube alternative).
The BBC article for example has almost 70 comments on Dissenter [2]. Removing a persons ability to comment only hides the problem, you can't stop them thinking a given way and you're less likely to change their mind if you cut off dialogue with them entirely.
> The issue isn't really about silencing people, but
> removing their access to a mainstream audience.
You're removing their access to a mainstream audience by silencing them. In this case they are the same.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
[2] https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https%3...
> construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading.
You're calling it out as a slippery slope argument [1], which is fair enough - except there is already evidence to suggest that users kicked off of these platforms migrate to Minds (Twitter alternative), Gab (Facebook alternative) and BitChute (Youtube alternative).
The BBC article for example has almost 70 comments on Dissenter [2]. Removing a persons ability to comment only hides the problem, you can't stop them thinking a given way and you're less likely to change their mind if you cut off dialogue with them entirely.
> The issue isn't really about silencing people, but
> removing their access to a mainstream audience.
You're removing their access to a mainstream audience by silencing them. In this case they are the same.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
[2] https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https%3...
> The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.
Those sound approximately like the same thing to me. What about the difference do you see as relevant?
Those sound approximately like the same thing to me. What about the difference do you see as relevant?
In the scenario of forcing speakers underground, those speakers have not been silenced (they may still speak to a large audience) but they will not speak to an audience which has not elected to listen to them.
Conversely, if you're popular on Youtube, you will be suggested to people who are not looking for your speech.
The difference is subtle, and that was my original point. Such acts of government will indeed not silence speakers, but it may as well do, because it stifles their ability to reach a greater audience.
Conversely, if you're popular on Youtube, you will be suggested to people who are not looking for your speech.
The difference is subtle, and that was my original point. Such acts of government will indeed not silence speakers, but it may as well do, because it stifles their ability to reach a greater audience.
and more importantly, removal of the ability to facilitate dissent in the public sphere. it's far easier to brand your opponents as reactionaries and pedophiles when they can only voice counter opinions in free speech ghettos that are already deemed unsavory.
It's a ballance. Town planning is also abused, but we do need it.
America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending individual liberties are paramount to a moral society. But now it seems we’re taking our new digital plane of existence and giving up a lot of that self determination for convienience and protection from exposure to things we don’t like.
I’m not sure how this will shake out in America versus Europe, but this seems as paradigm shifting as the civil war or the new deal. The next decade will be critical for Internet freedom.
I’m not sure how this will shake out in America versus Europe, but this seems as paradigm shifting as the civil war or the new deal. The next decade will be critical for Internet freedom.
America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending individual liberators are paramount to a moral society
I wonder what US citizen Anwar Al Awlaki would have said to that argument. The truth is that political free speech has limits, even for the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a...
I wonder what US citizen Anwar Al Awlaki would have said to that argument. The truth is that political free speech has limits, even for the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a...
This seems a strange response, since the extra-judicial killing of an American by the Obama administration was widely regarded as a serious breakdown in American norms — precisely by the same crowd who says things like GP.
Your link then would be support for their point, not a refutation.
Generally speaking, point out something in the past few years that’s an example of what the person is talking about isn’t a way to refute that things are changed — that you can only point to recent ones is evidence that things have changed.
Of course, Obama has no respect for American traditions, broadly: he’s the first president in history not to leave the capital and to continue to be politically active during his successor’s term.
His actions certainly aren’t what I’d put forward to someone claiming that American values used to be something, but have recently changed — Obama in general is an example of that collapse in principles.
Your link then would be support for their point, not a refutation.
Generally speaking, point out something in the past few years that’s an example of what the person is talking about isn’t a way to refute that things are changed — that you can only point to recent ones is evidence that things have changed.
Of course, Obama has no respect for American traditions, broadly: he’s the first president in history not to leave the capital and to continue to be politically active during his successor’s term.
His actions certainly aren’t what I’d put forward to someone claiming that American values used to be something, but have recently changed — Obama in general is an example of that collapse in principles.
I never bought into Obama’s hype machine, but the drone strike was carried out by the United States armed forces, who are required to not follow illegal orders; via a chain of command. There is a different party in power now: have there been any prosecutions?Presumably there was a lot of legal advice that sanctioned the hit on a US citizen exercising his ostensible free speech rights,[1] otherwise it would not have happened.
[1] My personal opinion is that praising terror and “inspiring” others is not free speech, but I don’t pretend otherwise
[1] My personal opinion is that praising terror and “inspiring” others is not free speech, but I don’t pretend otherwise
There was a lot of pseudo-legal justification and lack of prosecutions for the Bush torture program as well, which was another violation of American norms.
You have a very idyllic view that people can’t break the rules and get away with it: Obama murdered an American in violation of the law, but there is a tradition of not holding presidents accountable for their crimes.
Personally, that lack of accountability seems to have led to a ratcheting level of presidential misbehavior and a collapse in societal norms — precisely what this thread is about.
You have a very idyllic view that people can’t break the rules and get away with it: Obama murdered an American in violation of the law, but there is a tradition of not holding presidents accountable for their crimes.
Personally, that lack of accountability seems to have led to a ratcheting level of presidential misbehavior and a collapse in societal norms — precisely what this thread is about.
Or Vices as the Victorians would call them.
This looks like negative news for the Facebooks & Youtubes, but I think it's the opposite. Whenever the law, Facebook & Youtube will adapt - they have the resources to do so. Smaller players, and potential future competitors, will not be able to adapt.
This just draws a moat around existing behemoths that will protect them against future disruption.
This just draws a moat around existing behemoths that will protect them against future disruption.
Yes, it's called regulatory capture and it's the reason big players push for regulation and government involvement.
This is downvoted because I think people are insane. FB has indeed been pushing for regulation. Your comment is accurate.
This is indeed favors FB and YT. They will censor and blame it on the government, and they won’t take any responsibility.
[deleted]
a bit late but could be extremely helpful
Theresa May did an Op Ed[0] in the metro[1][2].
[0] https://www.metro.news/exclusive-by-theresa-may-we-are-leadi...
[1] pdf about audience - https://d212k0qo5yzg53.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/201...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(British_newspaper)
[0] https://www.metro.news/exclusive-by-theresa-may-we-are-leadi...
[1] pdf about audience - https://d212k0qo5yzg53.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/201...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(British_newspaper)
Would that include the Daily mails website :-)
The UK should delegate which media gets banned to the Queen so therefore it never happens.
> The UK should delegate which media gets banned to the Queen so therefore it never happens.
The UK already does that with some decisions (which is technically the Queen-in-Parliament delegating to the Queen with the advice of the Privy Council), but that doesn't stop action (Orders in Council) on those matters from occurring. Of course, in practice this is almost exactly delegation from the Parliament to the government.
The UK already does that with some decisions (which is technically the Queen-in-Parliament delegating to the Queen with the advice of the Privy Council), but that doesn't stop action (Orders in Council) on those matters from occurring. Of course, in practice this is almost exactly delegation from the Parliament to the government.
Fuck this country.
They will implement it without any trouble. No one cares because they don't realise what they already have.
Most media outlets will report on it as a "good thing" of course which doesn't help either
They will implement it without any trouble. No one cares because they don't realise what they already have.
Most media outlets will report on it as a "good thing" of course which doesn't help either
Here's the white-paper (pdf):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Also, the published code of practice:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Statement and parliamentary discussion:
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4576d30e-52ad-42d9-b5c...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Also, the published code of practice:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Statement and parliamentary discussion:
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4576d30e-52ad-42d9-b5c...
Once people accept that it's fine for social media to censor political speech, it's only a small mental leap to hand over that same control to the government. This development should come as no surprise as government officials see the thunderous applause heaped on media companies when they ban "problem people".
HN put shadow bans on hundreds of users for non-conforming posts. It seems like anyone who had a wrong stance on the whole "NPC meme" is affected, even if they only found it mildly amusing.
Source: I found it amusing, openly said so and I'm shadow banned on this IP.